A further traditional explanation emphasizes the strength and persuasive force of the arguments used to defend creedal commitments. The issues concern foundational beliefs, and therefore the consequences of an argument may be particularly significant for its audience.
Yet calling an argument “kalām” does not make it sound. Its force depends on sound premises, valid inference and the appropriate authority of transmitted or rational evidence.
Example: When someone argues that one proposition necessarily follows from another, two questions must be tested: Is the premise established? Does the claimed consequence really follow? An intellectually disciplined discussion examines both. This is the difference between a defensible theological argument and a chain of confident but unsupported assertions.